Last Wednesday, it cracked the top spot as the most popular trailer on iTunes and when the feature length version was released Friday, it went straight to the top… of a few global charts as Pirate Bay’s Most Torrented.

“There’s American Sniper, some other film with Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett and there’s Wyrmwood,” Kiah said.

That’s great publicity for a debut filmmaker, but the problem for Roache-Turner is he’s got about $1 million from four years’ worth of production costs to pay. Yesterday, he launched this plea on Facebook (Strong language warning):

“It’s a double edged sword for filmmakers,” Kiah said. “It’s a really exciting time, because you can pretty much become a global sensation overnight and nobody has had access to that in the history of cinema. You can have a million people watch your film in under a week, which is amazing.”

“The problem is the monetisation is almost zero. You’re lucky if you break even and it shouldn’t be that way.”

The film grossed about $85,000 from a one-off, Friday the 13th showing in 75 Australian cinemas last week and is approaching $125,000 – well short of breaking even.

They’re hoping what they lose in leaking thousands of free copies to pirates, they’ll make up in the publicity their story brings.

It’s an issue that dogs every artist these days, but Wyrmwood is in the uniquely unfortunate position of being a popular cult release that was given just a single night in cinemas to make money before the pirates jumped on it.

Tagged In

Discuss

As Chet Faker commented on Triple Other day to a musician/caller - Just make music that u like & that u want to play & then keep on doing it don't give up. Don't try to make for an audience or follow trends cos u think it will help u succeed. U have to love what u do to succeed & If u just keep doing what u love without conpromise - success will find u - he was adamant about that.
So Oz Zombie Filmers - Don't stress from the crap - u made a damn fine Australian film & people want 2 c it either way. Congratulations cos this Film will always be a triumph for u & if success comes a knockin it'll b cos u put out a product u loved ' then shared it with the world. samleigh

These two film makers have really been screwed by their distribution agreements which have locked them into a specific release schedule. The marketing and hype generated about the film has been a fantastic success, but the distribution of the film has been a dismal failure, that will ultimately cost the film makers and distributors. Here we have great content that people want to watch but can't access. The moment content is released digitally anywhere in the world it will appear as a torrent somewhere. Regardless of any moral or legal arguments surrounding file sharing, it will happen and recent experience has shown that no amount of DRM, fines, litigation, site blocking or other enforcement action will stop it. If rights holders want to monetise content then you need to release it globally on as many platforms as possible so consumers can actually buy it. Consumers when presented with a choice between waiting and accessing content via file sharing will generally always choose the latter, as has been demonstrated in this case.

You need to present a balanced argument. The distribution deal is not what took the money out of the filmmakers hands... that was the choice of the audience. The effort that pirates made to (illegally) torrent the film took exactly the same effort it would have made to (illegally) pay for the film on US iTunes. The audience chose not to pay. Additionally, the rose-tinted multi-release strategy you speak of does not work for Australia. GOT season 3 proved that. The audience got a fair deal, same day yet broke records for pirating. The answer to piracy is a combination of efforts. New distribution models, education on the subject, security and litigation for those that still steal it. The audience has to be accountable as well as the studios.

Copyright infringement always has been a pricing and availability problem. There is a certain demographic that will also try to get something for free, but the vast majority will pay for content if it is available at a reasonable price. Copyright infringement of music has significantly decreased since services such as iTunes, Googleplay, Spotify, etc. began operating. Consumers now have easy access to music at reasonable prices and are happy to pay. In addition services such as iTunes have removed DRM from their music which no longer restricts fair use and is now technologically agnostic. Availability, pricing and ease of use has been improved, and copyright infringement has decreased

In the case of Wyrmwood, copyright infringement is an availability problem. If you read the posts on the Wyrmwood facebook page, the vast majority are from people begging to pay them to see the movie. There is a high unsatisfied demand, and consumers will chose the easiest option. It's basic behavioural economics. Yes, copyright infringement may be morally and ethically wrong, but the reality is that it will happen, particularly if there is high demand and low availability. The delayed release of the Lego Movie in Australia is a perfect example, as is Wyrmwood.

It is not easier to pay for the film on US iTunes. To do so an Australian consumer needs to download and install iTunes (which is not the best software), use a VPN connection, purchase a US prepaid credit card, setup a separate iTunes account, and then download the movie through iTunes. Due to the DRM for video on iTunes, if the consumer doesn't have a compatible Apple device, they need to watch it through iTunes on a computer. Too bad if you only have a Android device, Chromecast, WDTV or Smart TV. To use torrents, all a consumer needs to do is download Popcorn Time (which is available on a vast range of devices), search for Wyrmwood and click play. Gaining access to Wyrmwood legitimately is all too hard for most consumers compared to torrents, and they are choosing convenience.

GOT3 proved that a delayed limited release strategy doesn't work. It was not a multi-release strategy. The episodes were released in Australia on iTunes only, 24 hours after showing on Foxtel. Again being iTunes only it suffered the same convenience issues. The audience did not get a fair deal. Being delayed by 24 hours, consumers chose copyright infringement, which had immediate availability, over waiting.

Your assertion that it is illegal to torrent or access US iTunes in Australia is also incorrect. Copyright infringement in Australia is only illegal (ie criminal) under a limited range of defined circumstances in the Copyright Act. These generally relate to infringement on a commercial scale. Outside of these defined circumstances copyright infringement is only a civil wrong (ie tortuous). A person will not be sent to jail in Australia for torrenting Wyrmwood as it is not a criminal offence. Accessing content in another country (effectively parallel importing) is not a criminal offence in Australia either (ie it is not illegal). At most it would be a civil wrong for breaching the conditions of use. In fact there is some argument that the provisions within the copyright act allow the importation of non-infringing copies purchased in another country. Parallel importing by consumers of media has yet to be tested in an Australian court though.

Education, security and litigation for copyright infringement (there are arguments both ways that it doesn't constitute stealing, but that is another debate entirely) has consistently being demonstrated to have minimal impact. Suing your customers, particularly when they're kids, pensioners or only have one leg is just bad for business (as recently acknowledged by Vice-president of royalties for Voltage Pictures during their current litigation against iiNet over Dallas Buyers club). A true unrestricted, multi-release model has not been tried on a broad scale by the major distributors. It has been successfully demonstrated on the smaller scale by comedian Louis CK, and on a larger scale through Radiohead's In Rainbows album release. Wyrmwood's creators have acknowledged that the current distribution rights system is a dinosaur but had not real alternative. The only thing that hasn't changed is the distribution model.

The situation that has happened with Wyrmwood has ultimately been decided by the audience, who chose not to wait. Businesses can ignore their audiences, but history has shown this approach will ultimately fail. Ford and Holden ignored their audience in Australia and continued to produce large cars, when their audience wanted smaller more fuel efficient vehicles. Both of those businesses have failed. The music industry ignored their audience when the wanted high availability, low cost digital distribution of music. Apple filled that gap in the market and gave consumers what the wanted and are now one of the world's largest and most profitable companies. Wyrmwood's distributors have ignored what consumers want and are suffering for it. Viewing the world through rose-tinted restrictive distribution and enforcement doesn't work.